Student jailed for 56 days for racial comments

Beefy78

Seachmall wrote: »

Under which of those criteria?

Distributing racist material to the public certainly. Arguably making inflamatory public speeches.

Had his solicitor felt that what he said didn't fall under the wording of the law then presumably he'd have pleaded not guilty.

Seachmall

Beefy78 wrote: »

Distributing racist material to the public certainly. Arguably making inflamatory public speeches.

Using racist terms in the public arena certainly.

Distributing racist material? No.

Had his solicitor felt that what he said didn't fall under the wording of the law then presumably he'd have pleaded not guilty.

There are many reasons why the solicitor may have requested he plead guilty even believing him to be innocent.

But this discussion isn't about what the law is, but what it should or shouldn't be.

St.Spodo

Laws ensuring that people's dignity is protected are way more useful and progressive constructs than absolute freedom of speech. The only people who need to rely upon the myth of free speech are people who use it to cause offence.

du Maurier

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

He told a person on Twitter he would "stamp on their face until it is flat", and he implied another posters father was a rapist. So that's threatening assault and slander (well, libel i guess as he wrote it) right there.

He also called someone a sh*t drinker!:pac:. I found that mildly amusing.

Beefy78

Seachmall wrote: »

There are many reasons why the solicitor may have requested he plead guilty even believing him to be innocent.

But this discussion isn't about what the law is, but what it should or shouldn't be.

Is it? Throughout this thread people on one side of the argument have harked on about Freedom of Speech. But there's no such thing and never has been. Not in Britain, nor Ireland.

Whether there should be Freedom of Speech is a huge topic and one that is far bigger than the case of this idiot in Wales.

Paparazzo

56 days in jail is a complete joke in fairness. A few boardsies would have to go back and edit their post history, especially in the "unpopular opininions" thread if you got jail time for something like that.
Any thread about travellers on boards, at least 10 people will do jail time for that. Dont get me started on sexist jokes.
Will the british government just make use of the word "n*gger" illegal? (that's not "nagger")

2 months in jail for this would be funny if it wasn't so worrying. As Ice-T says: Freedom of speech - just watch what you say"

EdenHazard

Joke, and it's only because muamba is famous

hatrickpatrick

Dudess wrote: »

It doesn't exist and never did. Surely you, a Christian and stuff, would disapprove of such comments anyway?

Sentence appears very harsh though IMO. The guy got caught, that has a lot to do with it. Unfair tbh. But it's nothing to do with "hurting black people's feelings" :rolleyes: it's to do with anti-racism legislation.

The people who say "Free speech anyone?" sound like teenagers whingeing at their parents, and absolutely clueless. Do a bit of research ffs. So you can say anything about anyone eh? I'm sure you'd disagree with that if you were the target. Cool with being called a "Backwards, thick, inbred, paddy savage" yeah? You can't say anything you want about anyone - and never could. There is a limit to what you can say when it comes to stuff that damages individuals - but you'd prefer the person making the comments to be more protected? People who go into tirades about free speech also seem like they're annoyed that they can't be asses to others.

What does disapproval have to do with anything??? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

If someone calls me a backwards, thick, inbred paddy savage sure it would p*ss me off, but that's a personal matter and absolutely none of the government's or the police's business. Libel is clearly not the same as it involves actually damaging someone's character and having a serious effect on their life. "Rude remarks" damage nothing other than people's feelings. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Just wanted to add that if someone did make such remarks about me and they were in court over it, I would show up in the court myself and call out how utterly ridiculous that was, and that I personally was disgusted to see someone jailed for it. And if that meant me getting hit with contempt, then so be it.

Gevie Stee

So is it against the law to be racist?

Paparazzo

Paparazzo wrote: »

56 days in jail is a complete joke in fairness. A few boardsies would have to go back and edit their post history, especially in the "unpopular opininions" thread if you got jail time for something like that.
Any thread about travellers on boards, at least 10 people will do jail time for that. Dont get me started on sexist jokes.
Will the british government just make use of the word "n*gger" illegal? (that's not "nagger")

2 months in jail for this would be funny if it wasn't so worrying. As Ice-T says: Freedom of speech - just watch what you say"

Ice-T also says "**** the police" and "Cop Killerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"
:pac:

CreepingDeath

Sykk wrote: »

Good to see the no tolerance for racism.. Discharged from college? A bit harsh..

So 56 days in Jail isn't harsh ? :rolleyes:

Skid wrote: »

You don't get a free pass to be racist on St.Patrick's Day.

I'm glad to see he got sent down.

I think it's sickening that he got jail, when he probably would've got less of a sentence for throwing a glass bottle at someone's head.

It's governments beating down native citizens to accept the huge social issues that the State caused by an open door immigration policy.

Seachmall

Beefy78 wrote: »

Is it? Throughout this thread people on one side of the argument have harked on about Freedom of Speech. But there's no such thing and never has been. Not in Britain, nor Ireland.

I don't think anyone denies that he is going to jail (and thus is guilty of an offense), the question is whether or not he should be going to jail.

Whether there should be Freedom of Speech is a huge topic and one that is far bigger than the case of this idiot in Wales.

Yes, but his situation outlines a major element of free speech discussions.

yoyo

I think its ridiculous that a drunken rant/racism has managed to ruin this guys chance of finishing college/travelling (criminal record) or getting a job. I don't for one minute agree with his comments, and he is a racist moran in my eyes but would the same have happened to a drunken reveller roaring walking home from the pub roaring the same comments after a skinfull if a cop overheard him? I highly doubt it...

Nick

Gbear

St.Spodo wrote: »

Laws ensuring that people's dignity is protected are way more useful and progressive constructs than absolute freedom of speech. The only people who need to rely upon the myth of free speech are people who use it to cause offence.

So at what point should an offended person be able to resort to the law?
Does the government get to decide what's offensive?
I take it you also agree with the concept of blasphemy law?

I find it offensive that the government should control what I say and try to control what I think. Should I be able to bring them to court?

Something as subjective as "offense" is completely unsuitable as criteria for bringing a legal case against someone. How can the law possibly cover what is offensive to everyone? And why should one person's sense of offense be valued more highly than that of others?

Deus Ex Machina

If I were penalised proportionally to this penalty for every "racist" remark I made in jest or while under the influence of some substance I'd be in the process of being tortured to death right now instead of sipping on scotch in the sunlight.

token101

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I don't really care, i just think it's ****ing hilarious he is in jail tbh.

What a dumb ****.

I think he's a very naive, thick ignorant, racist f*ck, but he doesn't deserve to have his life ruined. A criminal record and being kicked out of college is essentially ruining his life. He'll never get any job once he explains the conviction. And for what? Some stupid comments on Twitter?

Duggys Housemate

Laws ensuring that people's dignity is protected are way more useful and progressive constructs than absolute freedom of speech. The only people who need to rely upon the myth of free speech are people who use it to cause offence.

Hold your horses there my friend. It is possibly less offensive to someone from Pakistan to call him a "paki" as it is to rubbish Islam, or talk of Allah as an imaginary friend.

If we are back to the hoary old protecting people's dignity, you better tell us where, and whose dignity we offend and when; and what free speech myths we must bust to protect people getting upset, ( and diddums to them).

In general I would argue for politeness in speech, but that should be regulated by social codes, not the law - or else the progressive might find himself in Jail, as he snorts in laughter at transubstantiation in the near future. Of course we do have a blasphemy law already, but we can replace it with a "don't be upsetting people law", and it would be the same thing.

Beefy78

Had this guy not said this on twitter but had been at White Hart Lane, do those who have a problem with this verdict think that he should have been free to say, shout, or sing this at the game?

Seachmall

Beefy78 wrote: »

Had this guy not said this on twitter but had been at White Hart Lane, do those who have a problem with this verdict think that he should have been free to say, shout, or sing this at the game?

Sure, why not?

Logical Fallacy

token101 wrote: »

I think he's a very naive, thick ignorant, racist f*ck, but he doesn't deserve to have his life ruined. A criminal record and being kicked out of college is essentially ruining his life. He'll never get any job once he explains the conviction. And for what? Some stupid comments on Twitter?

Ah he is not having his life ruined at all. He hasn't been kicked out of college yet, all that is happening there is a disciplinary meeting, show the correct level of apology for bring the college/uni into ill repute and he'll be fine. If he is a good student and a good chap normally with people to speak for him he will be fine. If he is a low grade student who starts fights down the pub he might have a problem, but that problem will only be compounded by his behaviour.

The time spent in jail won't even impact him that much to be honest.

Wattle

Vile comments for sure but maybe community service with a black charity? He's probably not got much exposure to other races. He's a dickhead but why ruin his entire future by kicking him out of college and giving him a permanent criminal record?

Beefy78

Seachmall wrote: »

Sure, why not?

Fair enough. So is it fair to say that you consider the moves made (enforced by law) by English football in the last 25 years to remove such language, attitudes and behaviour from the terraces to be an infringement on freedom of speech?

Beefy78

Beefy78 wrote: »

Had this guy not said this on twitter but had been at White Hart Lane, do those who have a problem with this verdict think that he should have been free to say, shout, or sing this at the game?

Those hooligans (fans) do and say worse.
(i'm not just limiting it to Spurs BTW)

Beefy78

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Ah he is not having his life ruined at all. He hasn't been kicked out of college yet, all that is happening there is a disciplinary meeting, show the correct level of apology for bring the college/uni into ill repute and he'll be fine. If he is a good student and a good chap normally with people to speak for him he will be fine. If he is a low grade student who starts fights down the pub he might have a problem, but that problem will only be compounded by his behaviour.

The time spent in jail won't even impact him that much to be honest.

Plus if he is kicked out of that Uni then he can always transfer elsewhere for the remainder of his degree.

Seachmall

Beefy78 wrote: »

Fair enough. So is it fair to say that you consider the moves made (enforced by law) by English football in the last 25 years to remove such language, attitudes and bahaviour from the terraces to be an infringement on freedom of speech?

I don't know enough about it. Is it illegal to tell someone to "suck a black dick" on the terraces?

Seachmall

Seachmall wrote: »

I don't know enough about it. Is it illegal to tell someone to "suck a black dick" on the terraces?

No it's madatory in certain grounds.

Paparazzo

Gbear wrote: »

So at what point should an offended person be able to resort to the law?
Does the government get to decide what's offensive?
I take it you also agree with the concept of blasphemy law?

I find it offensive that the government should control what I say and try to control what I think. Should I be able to bring them to court?

Something as subjective as "offense" is completely unsuitable as criteria for bringing a legal case against someone. How can the law possibly cover what is offensive to everyone? And why should one person's sense of offense be valued more highly than that of others?

Spot on. Fat people jokes are punishable by law.
And what about people that were offended, but retweeted it to more people? They caused offence too. In fact, reporting it in national newspapers caused offence. How many followers did the guy have? About 20 probably. That's all that would have read it originally.

efb

Maybe people need to reflect on the impact of what they say online and that it's just not acceptable and has consequences.

I think people use this 'free speech' thing as an excuse to use racist, sexist, xenophobic or homophobic text online.

People (me included) need to reflect on how their words affect others.

Beefy78

Seachmall wrote: »

I don't know enough about it. Is it illegal to tell someone to "suck a black dick" on the terraces?

I would assume so.

Logical Fallacy

Seachmall wrote: »

I don't know enough about it. Is it illegal to tell someone to "suck a black dick" on the terraces?

I know over the last couple of months that a few fans have been arrested at games for things said on the terraces, you never really find out what was said though.

suicide_circus

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Hold your horses there my friend. It is possibly less offensive to someone from Pakistan to call him a "paki" as it is to rubbish Islam, or talk of Allah as an imaginary friend.

If we are back to the hoary old protecting people's dignity, you better tell us where, and whose dignity we offend and when; and what free speech myths we must bust to protect people getting upset, ( and diddums to them).

In general I would argue for politeness in speech, but that should be regulated by social codes, not the law - or else the progressive might find himself in Jail, as he snorts in laughter at transubstantiation in the near future. Of course we do have a blasphemy law already, but we can replace it with a "don't be upsetting people law", and it would be the same thing.

Agree

leggit

Should the people who retweeted the original post not be found guilty of distributing racist material???

Gbear

efb wrote: »

People (me included) need to reflect on how their words affect others.

You control what you say but it's down to each individual how something affects them.
As such, it's their problem.

What should stop you from saying something stupid is social pressure. If you're ignorant enough to say what this fella has said, then, for example, if the College sees fit to kick him out, that should be their prerogative.

Likewise, people can stop being his friend or he can be giving a dressing down by his family. But that's a subjective punishment meted out by people who are also given the opportunity to use common sense and act proportionately.
In the recent Suarez case, ignored amidst the tribalism and general ignorant horse****, John Barnes gave several brilliant interviews in print, on TV and on the radio (didn't know an ex-footballer could be so articulate) about how the attempt to fight racism in England clearly hasn't worked that well.
In the rush to protect peoples ears the ignorance underpinning it, perhaps because institutions are slow to label any viewpoint ignorant, seems to have been ignored.
Oppressing people into line won't work - shaming them by painting them as thick just might.

And the media slant on this generally seems to be "deeply offensive remarks were made" which paints the offended party as a bunch of pussies.
What the angle should be is "Deeply ignorant and moronic remarks were made. This guy is obviously a dope and who cares what he has to say."

44leto

X Double post

44leto

I am all for a zero tolerance when it come to racist twats, I feel it is unacceptable in this day and age. But I do think the sentencing was harsh, that is if this was his first offence. I would have slapped a huge and punitive fine on him. Prison space is a sparse commodity these days, even in Britain.

But I am curious about his college expelling him. Surely you can't be punished twice for the same crime.

CreepingDeath

Where's that black kid on YouTube who went on a rant about hating Ireland?

Let's have a witchhunt for that little shit.
Drag him up in front of a childrens court.

hatrickpatrick

Beefy78 wrote: »

Fair enough. So is it fair to say that you consider the moves made (enforced by law) by English football in the last 25 years to remove such language, attitudes and behaviour from the terraces to be an infringement on freedom of speech?

If it's enforced by law, 100% yes - unless it's direct incitement to violence.

Shane St.

While I have zero sympathy for these twitter trolls who just post mindless bile hiding behind their computers, I think this is somewhat harsh decision on this young lad. He is definitely being made an example of to deter all other would be trollers out there.
I mean this lads future career prospects are destroyed by this. From what I have read there was no overtly racial tone to his comments. It was just laughing at Muamba (which was disgraceful I must add).

Bob the Seducer

The jail time might seem harsh but he got off lightly compared to these guys...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/uk-riots-four-years-disorder-facebook

Two men have been jailed for four years for using Facebook to incite disorder.

Jordan Blackshaw, 20, from Marston near Northwich, and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, from Warrington, appeared at Chester crown court on Tuesday. They were arrested last week following incidents of violent disorder in London and other cities across the UK.

Neither of their Facebook posts resulted in a riot-related event.

Shane St.

Inciting is a far more serious crime than just randomly putting on twitter your opinion (whilst it was outrageous it was just a comment on a social networking site - no incitement etc.)

Beefy78

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If it's enforced by law, 100% yes - unless it's direct incitement to violence.

It's an interesting point. The established wisdom is that the outlawing of racist language and behaviour on the terraces has been a positive move for not just English football but English society as well and where we see monkey noises and chants made towards black players in games in Spain and Eastern Europe we tend to criticise.

IMO, as an English person who is just about old enough to remember people throwing bananas at John Barnes, I think that these legally enforced infringements on freedom of speech have been justified in that they've created a less openly racist atmosphere at football.

nickcave

Beefy78 wrote: »

It's an interesting point. The established wisdom is that the outlawing of racist language and behaviour on the terraces has been a positive move for not just English football but English society as well and where we see monkey noises and chants made towards black players in games in Spain and Eastern Europe we tend to criticise.

IMO, as an English person who is just about old enough to remember people throwing bananas at John Barnes, I think that these legally enforced infringements on freedom of speech have been justified in that they've created a less openly racist atmosphere at football.

But do you think people are less racist because they don't harbour those opinions anymore, or is it simply because they fear prison? And which situation do you think is better?

I mean, I don't throw bananas at John Barnes because it's a disgustingly offensive thing to do - not because the state tells me not to.

Gbear

Beefy78 wrote: »

IMO, as an English person who is just about old enough to remember people throwing bananas at John Barnes, I think that these legally enforced infringements on freedom of speech have been justified in that they've created a less openly racist atmosphere at football.

The thing is, you don't need the law to enforce that. Football clubs and the FA are private organisation and if they want to ban people for throwing bananas or any other kind of misbehaviour, racist or otherwise, then that's their right.

NTMK

44leto wrote: »

But I am curious about his college expelling him. Surely you can't be punished twice for the same crime.

the courts dont care because it was the decision of a private college and the college have the right to expel anyone who hurts the rep of the college. His rugby club have pretty much done the same thing as well and have thrown him out

lividduck

For my money he got away easy.
Incitment to hatred is a very serious offence. (unless it against Travellers, then it's just a national pastime):D

SeanW

The guy is a Category A moron, and should be treated as such by everyone. He would probably have grown up and stopped being a dickhead at some point, so I think jail and expulsion from school was too much.

token101

It's getting a bit ridiculous now. Is he up for public flogging next? He's been banned from his rugby club aswell? So he's been jailed, banned from university, and now banned from his local rugby club? All for what was more than likely a series of stupid, racist drunken comments? I'm starting to feel sorry for this guy. They've ripped his life from him in one week for being insulting and a really stupid f*ck essentially. Are they trying to drive the lad to suicide or what?

And also, doesn't anyone see how counterproductive all this is? The EDL just found a martyr for themselves! It's going ratchet up racial tension, not discourage it! What odds can I get on them saying this almost verbatum: They'll jail a white British lad, but yet fundamentalist Muslims can openly hand out leaflets in the UK calling gay people all sorts and promoting all sorts?

AngryBollix

He deserves it for being stupid as opposed to being racist.

But then if stupidity was a crime we'd all have a criminal record

Herrick

lividduck wrote: »

For my money he got away easy.
Incitment to hatred is a very serious offence. (unless it against Travellers, then it's just a national pastime):D

This is not targeted at you lividduck, but your post reminded me of something.

If some people think incitement to hatred, racism, sweeping generalizations and the like are such serious issues, why should it be ok to target certain groups and not others?

I find it hilarious when I hear some people say "you can't say that! Its racist you ignorant bigot!" or "You can't make generalizations of an entire group based on the actions of some!" only to then turn around five minutes later to bitch and moan about travellers or Roma gypsies. But if you dare talk negatively about another group, for example Nigerians, the same people are up in arms. I find it a great way to tell how fcuking stupid a person is when I see someone do this.

I wish people would cut the double standards. Your either against this type of thing or you not. None of this its ok to target certain groups BS. If your willing to scream your head off defending one group but take the piss out of another, it makes you look like your only following a fcuking trend or something.

keith16

Shane St. wrote: »

Inciting is a far more serious crime than just randomly putting on twitter your opinion (whilst it was outrageous it was just a comment on a social networking site - no incitement etc.)

Why was it outrageous if it was 'just a comment'?